Implementation

First, the Council's framework requires a comprehensive approach that embodies the three pillars of the United Nations, namely, human rights, development and security. The report makes a strong case for the link among human rights, humanitarian relief and security efforts. However, there is little mention of development efforts in the report. We can argue that development is not within the purview of the Council.

Capacity-building to resolve and deter possible conflicts is an important part of the normative framework to protect civilians. For that reason, we support the report's recommendation to increase funding for humanitarian and development actors in the context of the drawdown of United Nations peacekeeping and other relevant operations. Secondly, peacekeepers need to be provided with the resources required to fulfil their mandated tasks.

The Security Council must also be in a position to give clear policy guidance to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). The independent study commissioned by DPKO last year succinctly stated that the confusion over the Council's intent is evident in the lack of policy, guidance, planning and preparedness. We stand ready and willing to engage in the development of this process.

Mandates must be driven by national requirements and not by the priorities of others. In working on mandates, emphasis should be on understanding and providing what host Governments require, not an exercise in collating can be given to them.

India firmly believes that it is the solemn responsibility of the international community to protect civilians and safeguard their human rights. Naturally, this also entails that the peacekeeping missions that we mandate should be adequately resourced. Notwithstanding the development of International humanitarian law, United Nations human rights law and Security Council resolutions and mandates, civilians continue to suffer.

India believes that the primary gap is that of resources. First of all, the number of troops sanctioned for a peacekeeping mission should be such that it is in a position to provide meaningful support to national authorities. Similarly, those responsible for the development of normative frameworks and guidelines for the mission should invariably include the protection of civilians as necessary component.

Efforts to protect civilians may be hampered by a variety of reasons, such as the unwillingness of parties to a conflict to abide by international humanitarian law, the lack of resources, information gaps, or the lack of understanding about what peacekeepers should and can do to protect civilians. In such a situation, new and innovative approaches are required that are comprehensive in nature.

Another important aspect of the protection of civilians in the armed conflict is the strengthening of national capacities. The protection of civilians is a national responsibility and requires institutions and conditions that are conducive to their functioning. Peacekeepers must be there to aid in the development of these national capacities.

Yet despite, or rather because of, the flagrant violations committed by parties to conflict around the world, the ICRC firmly believes that the relevance and importance of international humanitarian law is reaffirmed, not weakened. That is echoed in the five core challenges in the Secretary-General's reports in 2009 (S/2009/277) and 2010 (S/2010/579) on the protection of civilians.

Working to ensure respect for international humanitarian law in situations of armed conflict remains at the heart of our mandate and our missions. For the ICRC, protection and assistance go hand in hand. Our presence on the ground ensures our proximity to the victims. We engage in confidential dialogue with State and non-State actors to uphold the rights of people affected, aiming as much as possible to prevent violations.